From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Ts'o Subject: Re: Unused block group, but all blocks not free? Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 22:28:38 -0400 Message-ID: <20150522022837.GC2750@thunk.org> References: <555BDEF4.1020704@ubuntu.com> <20150520151007.GK2871@thunk.org> <555CA52F.3010109@ubuntu.com> <20150520163148.GA23989@thunk.org> <555D0541.1000804@ubuntu.com> <20150521235940.GB2750@thunk.org> <555E7371.9060207@ubuntu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: ext4 development To: Phillip Susi Return-path: Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:51665 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755382AbbEVC2l (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 May 2015 22:28:41 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <555E7371.9060207@ubuntu.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 08:08:17PM -0400, Phillip Susi wrote: > > I wonder though, why I didn't see these problems the last time I used > e2defrag, which was probably 2 years ago and was on a filesystem with > a resize inode, and flex_bg and uninitialized bitmaps. At the time it > seemed that uninitialized bitmaps were not used on groups with blocks > used for these sorts of things. I guess that must also be a more > recent change. The change was that for uninitialized block bitmaps, dumpe2fs used to display incorrect information (that is, it would claim all of the blocks were free, even though in fact that was not true). People complained this wasn't actually accurate, so what we are currently doing is considered more correct(tm). - Ted